Kedoshim answers

Kedoshim 5720
Alef.

1.  RaMBaN: How can the “ל” of לרעך” be explained? The problem in the phrase “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” is that this is unnatural, i.e., it is setting a requirement that is impossible to fulfill. Consequently RaMBaN, focusing upon the usage of the preposition “ל” as opposed to the word introducing a direct object “את” suggests an asymptotic approach whereby one still loves himself more than anyone else, and yet still wishes good things for his neighbor, even if the extent of these good things will not be equal to that which he wishes for himself.

   Sephorno: The apparent problem for this commentator is that this phrase appears to be relevant and the underlying basis for many of the Commandments that are listed in the preceding verses. Consequently he does not see this phrase as a stand-alone Mitzva, but rather as a rationale for the preceding Mitzvot beginning in v. 9: Why must one allow a poor person to glean one’s fields (v. 9-10); not lie, steal, deny having what legally belongs to another (v. 11); not swear falsely (presumably in a legal case that will affect another’s status or possessions; v. 12); not oppress financially , steal brazenly or fail to pay a worker’s wages in a timely fashion (v. 13); not take advantage of someone who is handicapped either physically or knowledge-wise (v. 14); not engage in favoritism when judging others (v. 15); not be a tale-bearer or stand idly by when another is in difficulty (v. 16); not hate someone in your heart but rather give him/her rebuke if necessary (v. 17); not take revenge or bear a grudge against another (v. 18)? Because you should love him as you love yourself and you would not appreciate it if someone would do these things to you.

   Wiesel: In addition to the problem cited by RaMBaN above, other difficulties with the verse include: how can Commandments be given with regard to emotions which are not always controllable; if you have to care about every person as you do for yourself, then you have to be concerned about their troubles as well. This will lead to the untenable situation whereby you will always be depressed and beset by all sorts of troubles. Consequently this commentator concludes that the phrase is a justification for why no human being should be ill-treated, i.e., everyone is just like everyone else in terms of having been created in the Image of God.

   R. Moshe ben Menachem: The phrase in question is making a statement about the quality of love that one extends to another. Since a person feels differently about different things, inevitably certain things he will feel more strongly attached to and therefore love than others. The quintessential love object is the self. Consequently, if there will be no harm to the self when one extends love to another, then that is what one is expected to do. However, if by loving one thing, by definition that will detract from another, particularly the self, then one can place the self as the priority.

      Buber: The problem for Buber is to explain what is being added when the text states the word “כמוך”; why didn’t it simply say that just as you are not to hate another, you should love him? The phrase is appealing to an individual’s sense of empathy, i.e., just as one knows that he would want to be loved, so too do others. I should extend the same relationship towards them that I know I would like to be extended towards me.

2. RaMBaN deals with the impossibility of loving another literally as much as one loves himself.

   Sephorno explains how the phrase is the basis for many if not all Mitzvot Bein Adam LeChaveiro.

   Wiesel reflects upon the basic commonality of all human beings who are therefore deserving of equal treatment.

   Ben-Menachem feels that one can control his emotions and, short of the action being personally hurtful or disadvantageous, the next person should be treated just as one would treat himself.

   Buber states that our desires for ourselves gives us insights into what others want for themselves, and we should therefore attempt to fulfill their dreams for them.

3.  Wiesel makes two points based upon verses in TaNaCh and one re the trop as a commentary on the contents of a verse:

a. Beraishit 44:18; 41:39. In these two instances, the term “כמוך” indicates people of equal rank. Consequently in VaYikra 19:18, the idea suggested is that all human beings are of equal rank existentially in terms of their being created in the Image of God.

b. I Shmuel 18:1; 20:17; II Shmuel 1:26. In these instances, a literal love that was completely equal between two individuals is considered miraculous and exceptional, implying that this is not the standard to which all Jews, let alone all of mankind is held.

c. יח לֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵֽעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י ה': ׃ Since “כמוך” is separated from the previous phrase “ואהבת לרעך” it is not subject to the narrower interpretation that the only people you are Commanded to love are those who are just like you. Therefore the verse is to be read that you must love your fellow, just as you would love yourself.

4.  אבן עזרא שמות פרק כ פסוק יג

(יג) לא תחמוד אנשים רבים יתמהו על זאת המצוה, איך יהיה אדם שלא יחמוד דבר יפה בלבו כל מה שהוא נחמד למראה עיניו. ועתה אתן לך משל. דע, כי איש כפרי שיש לו דעת נכונה, והוא ראה בת מלך שהיא יפה, לא יחמוד אותה בלבו שישכוב עמה, כי ידע כי זה לא יתכן. ואל תחשוב זה הכפרי שהוא כאחד מן המשוגעים, שיתאוה שיהיה לו כנפים לעוף השמים, ולא יתכן להיות, כאשר אין אדם מתאוה לשכב עם אמו, אעפ"י שהיא יפה, כי הרגילוהו מנעוריו לדעת שהיא אסורה לו. ככה כל משכיל צריך שידע, כי אשה יפה או ממון לא ימצאנו אדם בעבור חכמתו ודעתו, רק כאשר חלק לו ה'. ואמר קהלת (לאשר) ולאדם שלא עמל בו יתננו חלקו (קהלת ב, כא). ואמרו חכמים, בני חיי ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא מילתא אלא במזלא. ובעבור זה המשכיל לא יתאוה ולא יחמוד. ואחר שידע שאשת רעהו אסרה השם לו, יותר היא נשגבה בעיניו מבת מלך בלב הכפרי, על כן הוא ישמח בחלקו ואל ישים אל לבו לחמוד ולהתאוות דבר שאינו שלו, כי ידע שהשם לא רצה לתת לו, לא יוכל לקחתו בכחו ובמחשבותיו ותחבלותיו, ע"כ יבטח בבוראו שיכלכלנו ויעשה הטוב בעיניו. והנה נשלם פי' עשרת הדברים...

Therefore, in Ibn Ezra’s view, as well as according to  Ben-Menachem who is quoting him, a person can convince himself intellectually and spiritually that certain things are beyond is grasp and he will accept that as HaShem’s Will.

5. No portions of these commentaries were underlined on the Gilayon that was online.

6. The verse in question is dealing with the sojourner, whom a Jew is instructed to love as himself, since he at least historically went through similar travails. Not only are you to harbor feelings of love for those who are quite similar to you, but even for those who seem to come from a different culture and upbringing, nevertheless they too are Created in the Image of God.

Beit.

1. RaMBaN: A “Chaver”, implying all people.

   Sephorno: All sorts of people, including the poor.

   Wiesel: All people Created in Image of God.

   Ben-Menachem: All people.

   Buber: All people even “Geirei Toshav”.

   RaShBaM: Specifically Jews who comply with the Commandments.

   Emek Davar: All Jews.

2.  Shemot 11:2 which discusses “borrowing” from the Egyptians prior to the Exodus, clearly defines “ריע” as a non-Jewish neighbor. This then would serve as a proof to all of the interpretations with the exception of RaShBaM and NeTzIV (Emek Davar).

   Shemot 20:12-3 regarding not swearing falsely on behalf of another, while the last of the Ten Commandments deals with not lusting after things that belong to or are associated with another could be applied to all the points of view. However, by extension, it would be implied that with respect to the interpretation of RaShBaM, it would be OK to do this and feel this way re not only non-Jews but even unobservant Jews, while according to NeTzIV, it would appear that non-Jews would be precluded from these prohibitions.

3.    ויקרא פרק יט

(יח) לא תקם ולא תטר את בני עמך ואהבת לרעך כמוך אני יקוק:

   If “בני עמך” is considered a synonym of “רעך” with literary parallelism serving as the frame of reference, then a basis has been established with respect to the interpretations of RaShBaM and NeTzIV. However, if we consider “בני עמך” as a more limiting and limited category, in contrast to “רעך”, in accordance with commentators such as MaLBIM and R. S.R. Hirsch, who look for  specific meaning in every turn of phrase, no matter how poetical it might initially appear,  then while the directive at the beginning of the verse might apply specifically to Jews, that does not logically follow with respect to the second part of the verse.

4.  It seems to me that NeTzIV is going along an independent path in his interpretation. He is focussing upon a more metaphysical, mystical approach articulated in the Yerushalmi, i.e., that all Jews are as one body, spiritually if not physically. Consequently, when you love another, you are literally loving yourself, and vice versa. The other commentators do not appear to go that far.